We have the likes of Cosmopolitan magazine circa 1960 to blame for modern women’s fear of the ‘F’ word. They sold her the idea that to have a fulfilling life, she must have a ‘C’ word in her armoury. A Career.

So off to work she went – but who was to look after her children? Why, further down the food chain, in ‘Take A Break’ magazine, women ‘B’ was being sold the idea that to have a fulfilling life she must have a job – so off to work she went. Looking after woman ‘A’s children…how come she can be fulfilled by looking after A’s little brats, but ‘A’ can’t? Eh?

Because ‘A’ was in a higher class job, that’s why. ‘A’ was collecting some Banker’s dry cleaning, rushing out to get his sandwiches at lunchtime, and answering his phone for him.

That’s fulfilment folks. It’s also a double dollop of taxation for the government. Which is just as well, because someone had to look after woman ‘B’s children whilst she was out at work, and she couldn’t afford to pay much, so the government gave some of the lovely taxation money to woman ‘C’ to provide cheap child care. It’s a whiz of a system, because it left the banker’s wife with nothing to do all day except wander round the shops wondering whether to buy the £750 shoes or the £900 shoes.

Nobody ever mentioned the ‘F’ word.

Now woman ‘A’s Mother has got old and cantankerous, and somebody has got to pull her knickers up for her and make her a cup of tea, and woman ‘A’ can’t do it ‘cos she’s too busy collecting the Banker’s dry cleaning and being fulfilled and everything, and woman ‘B’ can’t do it ‘cos she’s looking after woman ‘A’s children, and woman ‘C’s looking after woman ‘B’s children, so she can’t either.

So poor old Mum gets looked after by women ‘P’, who’s only over from Poland for long enough to buy a house back home and really doesn’t give a shit about woman ‘A’s Mother, but she does get minimum wages, so someone has to pay her. Guess who? Yes, it’s the government out of taxation on woman ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’. And there isn’t enough of that to go around, so we’ve had a two year Dilnot Commission to work out how to do that without woman ‘A’ losing her inheritance that she’d banked on from Mum’s house.

Cos ‘Mum forced to sell house to pay for care’ really wasn’t a good headline, and didn’t endear woman ‘A’, who is still voting, to the government. They’ve come up with some corking suggestions, and all the interested parties are piling in with even more.

And nobody is mentioning the ‘F’ word.

First of all, Mum is not going ‘to be forced to sell her house’. No, no, no. Even though she’s not living in it any more. So that gets rid of that headline. Not the problem, just the headline. No, Mum is going to be given a loan to pay for her care. A bit like a Student Loan, we can call it an ‘Imprudent Loan’ if you like. It’ll be Woman ‘A’ who is going to pay it back, out of her inheritance, and she can’t very well go on television and whine that ‘Mum’s heartbroken about her house’ now, can she? ‘Cos Mum’s still got her house, and woman ‘A’ is still out looking after the  Banker’s dry cleaning, and everyone is fulfilled. Especially woman ‘P’ who is halfway to buying a house in Gdańsk, even though she still doesn’t understand a word of what Mum is saying to her.

This week, the British Medical Journal, house magazine of that venerable body of Hippocratic oath takers, has come up with an even corkier suggestion. ‘I know’, they said, or at least a venerable Professor of Philosophy said, one of those especially deep, deep thinkers. ‘I know, stop feeding Mum, in fact stop giving her any water either, that’ll save on the water rates, and in ten days or so, the problem will have gone away’. No really, that is the alternative that is being suggested to Mum having to take out a loan to pay for her care. Starve the Bitch. The philosophical solution. You know it makes sense. You’ll be fulfilled. You’ll keep your inheritance. You can all go on looking after someone else’s husband, someone else’s kids, and the government will get lots of taxation.

Mum would like to put forward a solution of her own.  Since there is no one else around to translate for her, I’ll have to do it. Prepare yourself for a liberal use of the ‘F’ word.

‘For Fu*ck’s sake’, said Mum, ‘What about Family’ (Sorry about the ‘F’ word, I know you haven’t heard it for years, and it’s carefully kept out of all the learned solutions being put forward, but that is what Mum said…

‘Family’ – there, she said it again.

Stay at home, look after your own kids, look after your own man, collect his dry cleaning, make him a sandwich at lunchtime, make Mum a cup of tea – if other women can be fulfilled doing it for you, so can you! All you are achieving with your drive for ‘fulfilment’ is more taxation. In fact if you stop what you are doing and get back to the old Family way of doing things, the Banker’s wife won’t have so much time to go shopping, and he might not need the bonus to pay for those shoes. It’s win-win all the way.

Never mind Starve the Bitch, Starve the Beast.

MarkJuly 21, 2012 at 19:12

Modern women have been conned by feminism. All it has done is poisoned
relations between the sexes and made marriage a non starter for many men.
Thansk to a legal system that always favours women regardless of their
behaviour many men have come to the conclusion that running the risk of losing
your house children and most of your income is a non starter. Once you factor
in FALSE ALLEGATIONS of RAPE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and SEXUAL MOLESTATION is it
any wonder that an increasing number of men are effectively on marriage
strike? What will happen when tipping point is reached ( i.e. over 50% of men
are refusing to marry)? Answers please??

Andrew Duffin
July 20, 2012 at 22:24

xlnt post, thank you.

It always struck me as odd that certain women (most women, these days)
“have” to go out to work so as to earn enough to pay someone else to look
after their children.

I mean, why not look after them yourself? Wouldn’t that be more fun? And
whose children are they, after all?

Strange times we live in.

john malpasJuly 17, 2012 at 02:30

Come on – the smart blokes in the government saw feminsm coming and
immediately knew there was much profit and power in it for them.
Thry
didn’t much care that society would become barren.
That was tomorrow’s
problem.
Maybe politicians are much smarter than they seem.
They are
always roping the public into wars or ideologies. And the public never say
‘no’.

Edna Fletcher
July 16, 2012 at 15:15

There is a slight 21st Century conundrum that puts the F word slightly at
odds with the disparate ‘learned views’ that abound so liberally:

Family is the most likely abuser of the elderly
Family must take
responsibility for the care of the elderly

It cannot be both ways. Either there is something wrong with the first
view- which much Adult Safeguarding supports to ‘control’ bad behaviours’, or
something is wrong with the second.

A seeks her mother’s assets for herself, but it it equally clear many
elders want to pass their assets to their children. No doubt A could be held
to be financially abusing if she supported the house transfer to herself on
her mothers wishes. We had the case Anna highlighted of those with mental
capacity deemed to be unable to make a decision because the local authority do
not like this.

There is a huge disconnect in what is happening.

The Meissen Bison
July 16, 2012 at 12:23

…and didn’t endear woman ‘A’, who is still voting, to the
government

I think you may have meant this to be the other why round but it is sadly
an ever more accurate depiction of how the relationship between state and
individual operates.

Anna
RaccoonJuly 16, 2012 at 12:29

I did, you are quite right, yet again!

DavidJuly 16, 2012 at 12:03

Dear Anne,

I’ve just read the article in question and I think you’re a little
mistaken. The article isn’t making an argument that people should be starved
or killed to save money, time or effort. It’s actually about respecting what
people have said and are saying about how they want to be treated.

If mum has previously said that when she reaches a certain state of mental
and/or physical health that she wouldn’t want to be assisted in living anymore
who the heck are you to say that ““significant weight” to the patient’s
previously expressed values, wishes, and views.” should not be given. Isn’t it
a fundamentally libertarian philosophy that I control my body rather than the
government so can decide what should or shouldn’t be put in it, whether I
should or shouldn’t be able to sell it, and whether I should or shouldn’t be
able to ask for assisted suicide at some point in time.

Secondly the letter also argues that the ruling means that people with a
high state of consciousness should also be pretty much ignored.

This is the state ruling that not only are your past actions and decisions
almost meaningless, but what you currently think too. Screw you, only the
state gets to decide when it’s time for you to die.

It also is arguing against ignoring the F word’s wishes. “This recent
judgment, and the practice directions of the Court of Protection, logically
imply that doctors should no longer decide, in consultation with those who
know their incapacitated patients, whether life prolonging treatment including
artificial nutrition and hydration will be in their patients’ best
interests.”

Those are the sentiments expressed as far as I can see, rather than those
unfairly put forward by your blog.

David

Anna
RaccoonJuly 16, 2012 at 12:21

With respect David, in the case of M – there was no
advance directive. Her relatives argued ‘that she had told them’
she would prefer to die. I don’t want a court giving ‘significant weight’ to
what my relatives say I may have said. Especially not when said relatives
are liable to lose a chunk of their inheritance paying for my care one way
or another.

If I haven’t so expressed myself, I certainly don’t want a Professor of
Philosophy arguing that I should be killed off.

I want the court looking at what I, when I was fully sentient, and given
the opportunity to express my wishes clearly in a legally correct manner,
said.

I have a free will – I want to use it. If I don’t chose to use it by
making out a valid LPA then don’t pretend you are extending my autonomy by
making a decision on my behalf.

JohnBJuly 16, 2012 at 13:24

At risk of going way OT:

What worries me about even the living will concept is that people who
either bravely, or ideologically, claim they would prefer to be left to
die at such time they cannot manage their own survival, may actually find
themselves kicking and screaming as they are dragged through death’s
door.

Reality is often different to theory.

Anna
RaccoonJuly 16, 2012 at
14:02

I don’t think you are going over the top John. I know when I got a
brief glimpse of that door a few months ago, I had the screaming habdabs
until they managed to shut it again……!
I am a firm believer in
letting nature take its course added and abetted by as much medical
expertise as the world can muster. But if we have to have a law to apply
on these matters, let it be my signature that secures the deal, not the
remembrances of my beneficiaries, nor the philosophical musings of
someone who has never met me.

EngineerJuly 16, 2012 at 11:43

Many years ago, when feminism either wasn’t invented or was confined to the
London society chattering classes, people got on with it. There were many
families in which both parents worked. For example, the Lancashire cotton
towns were full of terraced houses, each rented by a man who worked as a
fitter in the local mill, and a woman who worked as a weaver in the local
mill. When the children came home from school, the woman’s old ma looked after
them, or perhaps Uncle Stan and Aunty Ethel next door (even if neither were
strictly related). Extended families were not just common, they were the glue
of society, aided strongly by old-fashioned neighbourliness. There wasn’t any
money after paying the rent, the food and clothes – maybe enough to replace
the worn-out rug in the back parlour and maybe a stay in Blackpool during
Wakes Week, but certainly not enough to pay other people for childcare. Maybe
the mill manager’s wife might employ a maid and a nanny, but they would leave
‘service’ when they married.

Yes, it was a restrictive life for many women, and hard too – long hours,
poor pay, sometimes appalling working conditions. But they did have
Family.

Somehow, we need to find the happy medium between the social norms of the
1920′s, and today’s. Perhaps we all need to be more realistic about what is
really possible. We can’t all ‘have it all’, not even the blokes. Maybe some
of the feminists need to realise that having the choice is great, but you
can’t always have the penny and the bun. Choice sometimes means making a
choice, and respecting others’ choice at times, too.

uk
FredJuly 21, 2012 at 22:55

Engineer, haven’t you heard. I would have thought that the morese code
would be going overtime along the pipes these days

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/07/11/the-suddenly-radioactive-have-it-all-promise/

Feminists are saying that they have never promised that women could “have
it all”.

macheathJuly 16,
2012 at 11:01

This A, B and C business has had me at screaming pitch for the past 20
years. The BBC – in the guise of ‘Woman’s Hour’ – has been pumping out regular
doses of propaganda between 10 and 11am to the effect that ‘Britain has more
mothers of under-5s working than any EU country’ (c. 1991) or ‘No working
mother gives less than 100% attention to her job while she’s at work’ (less
than a month ago).

Why do I listen? Well, I don’t, intentionally, but I got into the habit of
keeping the radio on while I was at home looking after my children (contrary
to the BBC harpies, this was not because we are rich – far from it; it was
quite a financial struggle – but because, as I see it, I made them, so why on
earth would I either expect or want someone else to care for them?) Then, when
I finally decided it was right, I set about looking for a job, but – guess
what! – there was nothing but supply work and short-term maternity cover
available; turned out all those ‘working mothers of under-5s’ weren’t going to
relinquish their place in the job market to an old has-been like me.

I once read a passage in a child-care book that perhaps reveals more about
Mother A’s attitude than she would like. It was aimed at professional mothers
anxious about returning to work and ran something like this: “You may be
concerned that your child-minder or nanny does not have the same level of
education as you and that this may harm your baby’s development. Don’t worry;
the quality time you spend with your child after work will be enough to ensure
he or she does not suffer any lasting effects.”

I can’t remember the title or author, but I can tell you I was soundly
cautioned by the staff of a certain public library for hurling one of their
books to the ground in disgust. It’s bad form, I know, but Anna, will you
permit a link to one of mine on the same subject? (Otherwise this comment
could end up much longer!)

http://newgatenews.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/question-of-childcare.html

uk
FredJuly 21, 2012 at 22:52

When all is taken into account, it is usually only the state that is
better off if both parents work. When one considers the costs of additional
work clothing for the second adult, often the costs of buying and running
the second car for the second wage earner to get to work, the extra costs of
food for the children and the second earner, the additional costs of the
office parties and stopping off for a short one every month or so, and then
the costs of childcare, how much is left. All too often the answer is a
negative amount. But as a nation we seem to be too thick to realise, or
maybe that is why the mathematics they teach in schools these days has no
real-life use.

anonJuly 16, 2012 at 10:48

Claire, I’m a bloke and I would just love to stay at home and bring up and
care for and teach my child. That would make me feel fullfilled far more so
than almost any of the jobs I’ve done.

I agree that telling women that not only that they can ‘have it all’
(choice is something I agree with) but that they MUST have it all (which is
not a choice and something I disagree with) has created a social tyranny of
expectations just as oppressive as the idea that all women with children
should inhabit the kitchen and the nursery only.

I always thought that Feminism was about giving women choices not
downgrading the idea of being a home maker when that is the woman’s choice.

From may male perspective although there have been spectacular gains from
feminism which I welcome, some aspects of it have enriched some women but
impoverished others both in the financial and personal sense. Although I
believe in equal pay for equal work,there has been an unintended consequence
in that those women who want to stay at home and look after children find that
their husbands/partners wages are now down due to the increased competition in
the job market. This makes it in many cases uneconomical to bloody work full
stop. How this could be remedied without going back to different male / female
wages I don’t know. Possibly the easiest would be to use the tax system to
give a massive tax reduction 60/70% to the working partner (whether male or
female) to offset the lack of the income from the extra person working.

The problem is to reduce the tax burden on working families there needs to
be a massive cutback in what the State does. We need to slaughter an awful lot
of leftist sacred cows in order to improve the situation for families and
society in general.

Right thats my mid morning rant out of the way – tea drunk and back to
work.

AmfortasJuly 16, 2012 at 11:03

“I always thought that Feminism was about giving women choices not
downgrading the idea of being a home maker when that is the woman’s
choice.”

Sorry, Anon, but the arch-Priestess of Feminism, Simone de Bouvoir made
it very clear that women must NOT be given the choice between ‘home’ and
‘work’, because as she pointed out, most women would choose the former.
Feminism has never been about equality (in pay or anything else) but in
wrecking the naturally evolving society and foisting social engineering,
with a socialist bent. Andrea Dworking, another arch-Priestess saw and told
of ‘home-maker’ being slavery, despite of and perhaps because of the maid
her husband employed to do Andrea’s housework.

macheathJuly
16, 2012 at 11:27

I’m reminded of the episode of ‘Cracker’, in which Robbie Coltrane’s
abrasive character retorts to (I think) his wife:

“So while you’re out lecturing on Women’s Studies and career
opportunities, some poor cow’s got her arm round your U-bend.”

macheathJuly 16, 2012 at 11:55

Oh, and this too:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/5180181/Jacqui-Smith-has-refused-to-give-her-cleaner-a-pay-rise-for-five-years.html

anonJuly 16, 2012 at 12:44

Yup I agree with you about the academic feminists, sometimes they were
not so much interested in making things better for women but in promoting
socialism in its various forms. In the real world however, things are
different and feminists are different. That is my experience based on the
people I’ve met – other peoples opinions and experiences will vary.

AmfortasJuly 16, 2012 at 10:07

Ahh, the ‘Family’. The ‘unit’ that had to go.

You forgot the other ‘F’ word-missing beneficiaries. The ones who took the
family to the cleaners. The Family Court. This second-half of the 20C
invention provides huge taxes that puts Mrs ‘A’ and her conspirators in the
shade. The average (UK) man, I read somewhere some years ago, when he gets
taken by divorce, loses a bucket-load of life-time asset accumulation. He
gives up UKP 87,000 (say about $135,000 Oz money). His now ‘free’ ex-wife gets
about $55,000 of it and the lawyers get $80,000. The Judge, who doesn’t
ctually have to do any Judging but simply ensures that the forms are correct,
gets paid $235,000, from Mrs ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’s taxes. And the poor chap being
divorced (women seek 70% of divorces) cannot afford a house anymore.

Is it better though than working his entire working life to support an
adult woman? At least he gets a few years off at the end. Heck, he could even
get a job as a clerk in the Family Court. Hah! silly me. The jobs are all
taken or reserved for the ex’s by ‘affirmative action’.

ClareJuly 16, 2012 at 09:58

But but but I don’t want to stay at home and have a husband and family. Im
much better at working than dropping sprogs. What about the chaps staying at
home? Also what about male single parents who have to work… It’s a lovely idea
but not a panacea.

Anna
RaccoonJuly 16, 2012 at 10:06

Well, if you don’t want to have a husband or a family then there is
nothing stopping you going out and looking after someone else’s husband or
family is there? Be fulfilled, its your Yuman Rite.

AmfortasJuly 16, 2012 at 10:12

Don’t tell us that you are ‘commitment phobic’, Clare. !